Bills Digest no. 9 2007–08
Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia's
Skills Needs) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2007
WARNING:
This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as introduced
and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest does not have
any official legal status. Other sources should be consulted to determine
the subsequent official status of the Bill.
CONTENTS
Passage history
Purpose
Background
Financial implications
Key issues
Main provisions
Endnotes
Contact officer & copyright details
Passage history
Australian Technical
Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia's
Skills Needs) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2007
Date introduced: 20 June 2007
House: House of Representatives
Portfolio: Education, Science
and Training
Commencement: Royal Assent
Links: The relevant
links to the Bill, Explanatory Memorandum and second reading speech
can be accessed via BillsNet, which is at http://www.aph.gov.au/bills/.
When Bills have been passed they can be found at ComLaw, which is at
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/.
The purpose of the Australian Technical
Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia's Skills Needs) Amendment
Bill (No. 2) 2007 (the Bill) is to amend the Australian Technical
Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia's Skills Needs) Act 2005
(the Act) to implement a 2007–08 budget measure for the establishment
and operation of another three Australian Technical Colleges (ATCs).
[1] These ATCs, catering for approximately
900 students, will be located in Northern Perth,
Southern Brisbane and the greater Penrith region
of NSW. They are scheduled to open by 2009.
ATCs were established as the result of a 2004 Coalition
election policy commitment. They are part of the government’s broader
strategy to address skills needs—in the case of ATCs, in regional areas
where there is a high youth population and a strong industry base.
ATCs operate as schools, providing both academic and
vocational education and training (VET) programs for Year 11 and Year
12 students. They are directly funded by the Australian Government and
are run by consortia which can include representatives from local businesses,
industry, schools, and training organisations. As explained in recent
Senate Estimates hearings, there is no single model for their operation:
The delivery models vary significantly across the colleges.
Some of them are stand alone, which means that they are providing all
the academic and trade training in the school or in the college. Others
are partnering with existing organisations and using existing infrastructure.
So some of those are purchasing or outsourcing their trade training
to existing RTOs (registered training organisations). [2]
Originally 24 ATCs were to be established for up to
7200 Year 11 and 12 students in nominated regions across Australia.
In July 2005 the government decided
to establish an additional college in Adelaide.
This Bill will bring the total number of ATCs to 28 with a target enrolment,
once all ATCs are fully operational, of 8400 students each year. Currently
21 ATCs are operating (the most recent commencement is the Pilbara
ATC which opened in July). Five ATCs are due to open
in 2008, although a successful proponent for one of these—the proposed
Lismore/Ballina ATC—has yet to be announced. [3]
The ALP has committed to maintaining established ATCs
but proposes to transfer their management to state and territory government
and non-government school sectors. This will be done ‘through consultation
with all interested parties and as contractual agreements allow.’ [4]
If elected, the ALP has stated it will also provide
$2.5 billion in capital funding over 10 years to build new trades training
centres in all Australia’s secondary schools to promote vocational education
for students in Years 9 to 12. This commitment will be augmented by
programs targeting stronger links between schools and industry and improving
student access to on-the-job training. [5]
The Bill provides for an
increase in appropriations of $74.701 million over the period 2008 to
2011 (thereby also extending the ATCs Programme by two years) as follows:
2008–09: $17.125 million
2009–10: $24.802 million
2010–11: $15.823 million
2011–12: $16.951 million
[6]
The proposed establishment of three additional ATCs
comes amidst continuing concerns about the establishment and operation
of ATCs, most recently from the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO).
Their establishment is also occurring ahead of a review of the ATCs
Programme that has been foreshadowed for 2008. [7]
The establishment and operation
of ATCs has not gone to plan. Additional funds of $112.6 million
were provided in 2006 because, as the then Minister explained, the earlier
opening of more ATCs than anticipated had resulted in higher operational
costs. He also attributed the additional costs to the flexibility of
the program which had resulted in more new sites and multiple campuses
than were anticipated. [8]
As at the enrolment census
on 31 March 2007, of the 20 ATCs that were
then operating, one had exceeded its enrolment target for 2007, one
had matched its enrolment target, and eight were within 10 per cent
of their enrolment target. Some ATCs were significantly below their
2007 enrolment targets. [9]
The total planned expenditure on ATCs ($530.9 million
from 2005 to 2011) and the numbers of young people that will benefit
(8400 students per year once all ATCs are fully operational) has drawn
unfavourable comparisons with state and territory VET systems. In 2005
there were approximately 1.2 million publicly funded VET students and
total government revenue to the VET sector was approximately $4 billion—$2.7
billion from state and territory governments and $1.3 billion from the
Australian Government. [10]
Critics typically argue that ATCs duplicate existing VET facilities
at far greater cost and that the funds would be better invested in existing
VET arrangements. [11]
Since the establishment of ATCs some states have also
announced the establishment of state-run technical colleges which the
Australian Government sees as an endorsement of the ATCs Programme.
[12] According to the
Prime Minister ATCs have:
[created] a renewed interest in technical education all
around Australia.
As a result of what we did with Australian Technical Colleges, the states
are now, in a number of areas, returning to dedicated technical schools,
something that should never have been abandoned in our education system
30 or 40 years ago. [13]
In relation to the lower than expected enrolments for
ATCs and the existence of state and territory publicly-funded VET alternatives,
one issue that has not been generally raised is the affordability of
ATCs for potential students. Most ATCs are non-government schools and
are located in regional areas. Whether the fees they charge (including
the usual fees non-government schools charge and any additional fees/costs
involved for the VET courses) are a deterrent to enrolments may be a
consideration. However as there is no separate information about the
fees that ATCs are charging it is difficult to consider their impact.
The ANAO’s report on the ATCs
Programme concluded the Department of Education, Science and Training
(DEST) adequately planned the program’s implementation and consistently
assessed the ATC proposals. However the report draws attention to what
the ANAO regards as shortcomings in the program. While the Minister
in his second reading speech highlights that, unlike the three years
on average it takes to establish a new school, the Government established
20 ATCs in less than 18 months, the ANAO report raises concern about
this haste:
The policy provided DEST with little time to plan for
the establishment of the colleges. The new schools had to be established
in far less time than is usual for new schools, which can take three
to four years of preparation before acceptance of their first students.
This limited time made more difficult DEST’s tasks of selecting the
best educational and financial models to achieve the programme’s objectives.
[14]
The ANAO identified that aspects of the program’s implementation
could have been improved by giving more attention to the interests of
state and territory governments; that more attention needed to be given
to the financial administration and management of the program, including
the ATCs’ ability to administer funding for capital projects; and that
each ATC developing its own training curriculum is time consuming and
costly. The report’s recommendations to address the latter two issues
have been accepted by DEST. [15]
Item 1 of Schedule 1 amends subsection
18(4) of the Act, providing $74.701 million over the period 2008 to
2011 for the establishment and operation of three additional ATCs.
[7]. ANAO, op. cit., p. 25.
[14]. ANAO, op. cit, p.19.
Marilyn Harrington
3 August 2007
Social Policy Section
Parliamentary Library
© Commonwealth of Australia
This work is copyright. Except to the extent of uses permitted by the
Copyright Act 1968, no person may reproduce or transmit any part of this
work by any process without the prior written consent of the Parliamentary
Librarian. This requirement does not apply to members of the Parliament
of Australia acting in the course of their official duties.
This work has been prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament
using information available at the time of production. The views expressed
do not reflect an official position of the Parliamentary Library, nor
do they constitute professional legal opinion.
Feedback is welcome and may be provided to: web.library@aph.gov.au.
Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian.
Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications
with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients
may contact the author or the Library’s Central Entry Point for
referral.
|
